Concession would make fuel economy standards easier for large trucks (Source: Dodge)

Concession would reduce the yearly increase rate for new standards for large trucks and SUVs to 3.5% per year

The Obama administration wants to significantly
increase the CAFE standards that govern fleet wide fuel economy for automakers.
The problem is that there is a huge amount of backlash from those in the
automotive industry. The backlash is so far keeping the Obama administration
and automakers from coming
to an agreement on proposed fuel economy standards moving into the future.

The Obama administration has put aconcessionforward
in an effort to woo the Big 3 automakers to agree to the economy standards. The
concession would see the makers of big trucks and SUVs forced to move to the
higher fuel economy standards at a much slower rate than makers of cars and
light SUVs. Hopes are high that the agreement between the Obama administration
and the Big 3 will be made by early next week.

Washington wants the CAFE requirements to beset
at 56 mpgby 2025. The concession would allow the Big 3 to adopt
the CAFE standards for the larger, gas guzzling vehicles, at a rate of 3.5% per
year rather than the 5% annual improvement rate that the Obama administration
wants for light trucks, cars, and light SUVs.

CAFE standards are currently targeting 35.5 mpg
fleet wide by 2016 and that number will grow to 56 mpg by 2025 under the
proposed regulations. The final rules are hoped to be ready by September.

However, automakers outside the Big 3 are not
happy at all about the proposed concession. Carmakers that do not produce large
SUVs and trucks see the concessions as giving the Big 3 an unfair advantage.
The companies feel that the concession would encourage consumers to buy less
efficient vehicles.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: Otherwise we'd all still be driving death traps without catalytic convertors that get 10mpg. But they'd also only cost $4000... You weigh the benifits and I'm sure you'll reconsider. Having a $20,000 safe car that is quiet, doesn't pollute much and gets 40mpg is far better than the $4000 alternative.

In the mid 1920s Henry Ford saw many friends lose their lives in car accidents. The 1927 Model A Ford had safety glass, an all metal body and wheels.In the mid-fifties Ford had a padded dash and, hold on, seat belts as an option but few bought them.

Perfect vehicles, no but the manufacturer did it long before the nanny state dictated contradictory single-minded regulations. That is force very high MPG & safety standards before all material development and costs allow for any profit margin, gotta stay in business too.

Your "only the government can do it" ideology is mostly misplaced. When most people are shown the reason for such products, i.e. crash footage with and without safety devices few willingly go without. Oversight on manufacturer claims, yes. Dictating the market place, really?...

BTW If you ever had the chance to go into a junkyard in the 70s-80s you would not have found many burnt Pintos but you would have found many burnt Datsuns and Toyotas. I saw them there.

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates